Jump to content

Talk:For Better or For Worse/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

September 2004

This has to be one of the few continuing-story comic strips still in widespread newspaper syndication; it's certainly the main one in the Nashville, Tennessee market. I also think that it's remarkable that there is no concession made to the U.S. market; everything is explicity Canadian -- distances in kilometres, a train trip from Ontario to Vancouver, etc., which is fine with me, but something that U.S. syndicators have generally shied away from in the past, as everything seemed to need to be either American or "foreign" but not explictly Canadian for some reason. Rlquall 14:47, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I actually find that to be one of the strip's charms. CFLeon 00:46, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

September 2004 II

Anyone know where I can find info on the strips that have been published in books? I know there's a lot of them, but I haven't been able to find any info about the order the books go in. Garrett Albright 06:36, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

FBoFW Online Store would seem to be a list of all the compilation books in publication order. And judging by the artwork on the covers, I'd say they cover the family's development in chronological order as well. MrItty 17:54, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Look in any of the books, and they list all the ones published in their order, which reprints the strips in chronological order. Only thing missing is a listing of what dates are covered by which book. 129.188.33.222emb021 — Preceding undated comment added 19:57, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

November 2004

and closely emulates them. Her son, unhappy at being constantly portrayed in the comic, is now alienated from her. Could we have a cite for this, please? - Montréalais 20:58, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Indeed: When asked, "Do you ever get the feeling that your family thinks you’re looking at them, waiting for material to happen?" Johnston replied: "Never. That would be like looking at an oven, waiting for a cake to happen. You have to make it up." [1] This is from her POV not her son's, but it does raise a question. JenKilmer 16:27, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

June 2005

An internal contradiction. In the second paragraph of the intro, the article says Elly Patterson, the housewife, is a "book store-owner". Under the Main characters section, it says she is a "toy store-owner". Does anyone know which it is? Thanks. --Tregonsee 01:33, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

She owns the store Liliputs (or something like that) which sells books, toys, model trains, and board games. --Quadraxis — Preceding undated comment added 17:51, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
She did until recently, when she sold it. CFLeon 00:46, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Real time

The article notes that FBoFW operates in "real time" and cites "Baby Blues" and "Gasoline Alley" as two other examples. That's not entirely true. FBoFW really, really operates in real, real time. The characters age exactly as they would in real life. The other two strips operate in "stretched time" (that's my terminology). The characters age, but at a much slower pace, perhaps 1 year for every 3 elapsed years. I think the article should make that distinction, but I'm not sure exactly the best way to word it. Any suggestions? Joe 21:17, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, a lot of strips let their kids age to a certain point and then 'freeze', like Blondie, Peanuts, and Dennis the Menace. There are a lot less that let the kids grow up to adulthood, although that seems to becoming more common nowadays with Safe Havens and Doonesbury, to give a couple of examples. I don't know about "stretched time', although that may be a good term; Gasoline Alley operates more like Safe Havens, in that the characters freeze for a long time at a particular age and then age very quickly to another milestone, then freeze again and keep doing that to keep pace more or less with real events ('hopping time'?). Doonesbury took yet another track; it started as a college strip, then, after 12 or so years, let its characters age to catch up with their generation. CFLeon 00:46, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Farley

Hi: I'd be hard pressed to cite anything, but I recall that Farley's death was used, according to press reports I remember reading at the time, in sermons and to 'talk about death' with kids because it happened the week of the Oklahoma bombing that killed all those people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.157.179.164 (talk • contribs) 00:51, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Personally, I don't like the way this sentence runs in the article. It implies that the strip was written specially to help those people, whereas the strips are actually written weeks in advance and that they happened to fall on the same days is purely coincidental. (The Wizard of Magicland) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.240.255.41 (talk • contribs) 11:59, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Not to mention the fact that the strip originated in another country, Canada, where the bombing was just another world incident. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.208.18.51 (talk • contribs) 19:02, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
More importantly, the strips are submitted some eight to ten weeks ahead of publication. That means the death of Farley was written and drawn about three months before the bombing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.235.229.121 (talk) 16:25, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Various issues

  1. Elizabeth's birthdate: It's true that Liz's birthdate is officially listed as June 26, 1981. [2] However, that mildly contradicts the real-time nature of the strip, since an archived strip on the official site at [3] shows Elizabeth as a baby in a strip dated February 8, 1981.
  2. Minor characters: I wonder whether we need all of these people listed, some of whom were never significant characters, and others who haven't been seen in years. Examples of those who could be dropped from the list are Andrea Sobinski, Ardith Narayan, Beatrice Alfarero, Bev Cruikshank, Fiona Brass, Lily Petrucci, Maxine Hébert, Paul Bergan, Steve Nichols, and William Patterson. And Ned Tanner should be demoted from supporting character, since he was a figurine rather than a person.
  3. Animated series and specials: While the TV series never really caught on, many Canadian children know this animated version better than the original comic strip. If the TV series never caught on, how could it be better known to children than the comic strip -- unless the comic strip was barely known to them? I suppose that's possible, but it's implausible and should be sourced. --Metropolitan90 07:48, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
    Regarding #1, Lynn said on her website that the characters began to age some time after the strip started, so Elizabeth's age at the beginning isn't consistent with her later-assigned birth date. Paul C 17:12, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
    It's here, specifically. Paul C 17:17, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
    Agreed. Is it really necessary to list the Rabbits, for instance??? CFLeon 00:46, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
    The rabbits, Mister B and Butterscotch, had far more impact, and appeared far more often, than many important human characters. The death of Mister B was a significant event in April's life, as an example. The rabbits are included in almost all promotional material and "family photos." Grandpa Patterson (William) is significant in being referenced even if he does not appear as often as other characters. I would not suggest dropping him. 24.235.229.121 (talk) 16:33, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
    It's worded badly, in Ontario the show was on a tv station known as teletoon for approximately five years I believe. As such, it gained a fair bit of notoriety. I only began reading the strip myself due to this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.12.43.26 (talk • contribs) 09:05, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Old storylines

I thought that it didn't make sense for the page to only reflect the storylines from the last couple years, so I took a little time going through the earliest books to try to summarize the first few years of the strip, and updated the page with those years (79-82). I tried to include only the events that seemed most notable, in the context of either the year (like the Pattersons' vacations), the emphasis of the strip (Connie's love life may not seem that important but it seemed to be the focus of more strips in the early years than almost anything else), the overarching story of the strip (Farley's arrival, Michael crushing on Deanna), or the characters (Elly's constant feelings of inadequacy, John being a jerk, etc.). Basically the things that might look relevant later on.

An argument could be made that it would be too much detail to do this for each of the years; in my opinion, because the strip is so unusual in the way it chronicles an ongoing storyline, it's worth while and it's different from detailing the themes of each week in Curtis or something like that. It also seems like the storylines could eventually be spun off into their own page. But I didn't want to put any more time into it immediately if people thought it shouldn't be in the Wikipedia at all. I've never added any info to WP before and only gotten around to registering an account right after I added the info to the FBOFW page earlier today.--Propaniac 02:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

The ongoing realtime nature of the stories are a unique feature of the strip, so it seems a worthwhile project, furthermore there are certainly book, comic & television series which have separate Wikipedia entries for each episode (with a lot of episodes), so an article doing a synopsis by year doesn't seem out-of-line at all (though to keep the main article a reasonable length I'd definitely suggest spinning it off as a separate article such as For Better or For Worse storylines by year <--- click here to start it ^_^). --Invisifan 05:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
I fully support inclusion of previous year's storylines - but as a separate link - please provide more! --Ninevah 08:02, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

What happened to the separate article that outlined storylines year-by-year? It used to be linked to the main article, but the link is gone and I cannot find the article by searching. I spent a LOT of time adding to that article and will therefore be livid if I discover that it is completely gone. Can anyone help?!?! Kborgesius (talk) 15:34, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

It's gone. There was an AFD a couple of weeks ago, which was closed as Keep, but the editor who opened the AFD took it to review and consensus was to delete. Apparently, it was felt that an article that was entirely plot summary was non-encyclopedic. Vgranucci (talk) 00:50, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Move Request

It was requested that this article be renamed but the procedure outlined at WP:RM#How to request a page move did not appear to be followed, and consensus could not be determined. Please request a move again with proper procedure if there is still a desire for the page to be moved. Thank you for time!

However, let me also note that the official site for For Better of For Worse seems to indicate that the current capitalization is correct. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 03:40, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Criticism

Can we get a citation for the rather dubious assertion that "many" readers have problems with the political correctness of FBoFW? Mucus 21:32, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I doubt it is possible — that section was added last night along with various edits that were indicative that the editor was highly pov-oriented (and living a life very sheltered from the rest of the world, if I may be a allow a slight dash of personal pov myself) ... in fact while cleaning it up I removed the whole section, but he put it back so I left it with ony a bit of toning down ... someone else removed half of it this morning though ... In any event if you look at the history & changes by this editor it seems likely that this section is actually a reflection of the editor's own personal feelings toward the strip.--Invisifan 23:02, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
I moved the "sourced" comments on the criticism, which are largely from interviews with Johnston, to a sub-section away from the unsourced "some readers have problems with" information. Also added a request for sources to the unsourced section.
Johnston's view of the criticism she's received (and the comparative lack of criticism prior to Lawrence's coming out) is useful information, tho of course it's from her POV. So it's labelled as such. JenKilmer 18:44, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

October 2006

If the Foobiverse can be included in the links section, can it not also be used as a citation source for criticism? Other criticism sites include Comics Curmudgeon and April's Real Blog. If anyone needs a reader-based online critique and satire source, it's not hard to find - and reporting criticism would not then be the same as editor POV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.33.195.94 (talk • contribs) 15:16, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I am reluctant to remove text without prior discussion and a degree of consensus but this observation would in my view certainly require a citation as to which readers are referred to as to problems with political correctness. I should think it could come out unless such a citation were forthcoming. On the other hand, the note at the top of the article that it reads like an advertisement and is questionably neutral in its point of view is -- or was --not without validity. I have inserted a number of sourced qualifications -- one by Johnston herself ("I have to admit that I'm not in a place where I can do this," Johnston says. "I'm past the point where I can remember what it's like to be a young mother."[1]). Masalai 00:03, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm not familiar with Comics Curmudgeon and April's Real blog, but Foobiverse is clearly an inappropriate link for the article as per WP:EL, section 1.9 since it's just a blog. Mucus 04:14, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://www.lynnlake.ca/A_Place_to_Remember_13.html Retrieved 12 October 2006.

Minor Characters

Can the minor characters be placed in a separate article? The FBORFW article is getting quite lengthy with these listed. Ninevah 00:31, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I've put all characters in a separate article. And it promptly got a note suggesting that it be merged with the main article! Masalai 04:17, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
I think the separate article makes sense - this was getting WAY long! JenKilmer 15:58, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Eh, I think it's fine AccuracyAdvocate79 (talk) 04:07, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Millborough

How do we know that Millborough is near Barrie? Is this based on the two-hours up Yonge statement? In previous reading of the strip and articles, I'd got the impression that Millborough was a fictional town, perhaps Brampton, Oakville or Mississauga or Hamilton. Millborough Line runs through Oakville and Johnston used to live in Hamilton. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.19.177.73 (talk • contribs) 06:05, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

from the FBoFW webite FAQ "The elder Pattersons are definitely suburb dwellers; living about 45 minutes' drive from the city in Milborough, which resembles Etobicoke or Newmarket." 208.101.91.76 00:40, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, it's definitely not Brampton, as of the time of April's birth. My dad took a workshop with her, and I think she would've said if she based it off Brampton. Millborough is more likely in Barrie or Hamilton, despite the fact Hamilton doesn't connect with Yonge. Of course, I don't think the geography of the town is based on anywhere. I guess one way to figure out where it is... does Barrie have rivers to sweep away April? -- Zanimum 15:11, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
I wouldn't put too much stock in that "two hour drive up Yonge St." statement. If it's supposed to be a two hour drive up Yonge Street it's definitely not Barrie, as two hours North along Yonge (highway 11) would put you in Huntsville. I'm always thought of the Pattersons living in someplace more along the lines of Newmarket. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.235.179.9 (talk • contribs) 10:02, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
The only story arc I remember where the travel time from Mike and Deanna's home to the Patterson's is the one in March 2005 where April stops by, and Deanna wins the coin toss to drive her home. The drive is referred to as an hour drive (2-hour round trip) and they do use Yonge Street. I think I'm going to remove the 2 hour reference. As far as being near Barrie is concerned, the website does have a map, and the positioning of Millborough does make it seem to be close to Barrie.Vgranucci 06:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
For what it's worth, the actual location of the Milborough dot on that map is pretty much level with Barrie, but it's on the opposite side of Lake Simcoe, basically between Cannington and Beaverton in Durham Region. That's actually on Highway 12 rather than Highway 11, but Yonge Street/Highway 11 is a more logical and straightforward route from downtown Toronto than Highway 12 would be — 11 and 12 interchange at Orillia, and the dot would be no more than ten to fifteen minutes back down the other side. So 45 minutes to an hour up Yonge is a reasonably good estimate, depending on city traffic. Bearcat (talk) 00:24, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Removal of line

I'm removing the fallowing lines "In a November 2006 interview [4], Johnston said that characters in the strip will stop aging as of September 2007, and that the strip will continue as a mix of rerun classic strips and new material." for a few reasons, the first is that the interview is linked to earlier in the article, the second is no date is given for the ending and the third is that there is nothing in the interview to confirm the claim that it well continue as a mix of reruns and new material. Greatigers 03:18, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

That's how I took it too. I'll see if I can dig up the email I had once for Nancy, her exec, who could help straighten things out in a Wikinews interview. -- Zanimum 15:00, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
The strip is inconsistent in its usage of US vs. Canadian spellings and expressions. There is a Q & Eh response acknowledging this, at the official site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kborgesius (talk • contribs) 14:25, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Contradictions in Distribution Section

Confused... At the beginning of this section, it says Johnston uses Canadian spelling and then at the end it says she uses generally US spelling... And British spelling (and usage) differs more from Canadian spelling than Canadian spelling from American. I'm pretty sure Johnston would choose sofa or couch over chesterfield, but I also wouldn't state that she goes out of the way to use American usage. Unless there is actual references to these, I would like remove these ambiguities. Leah 04:42, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

"Nobody will get older"

That's "nobody will get older than they are in the fall of 2007", right? The way I take it, there's no totally new storylines, it will all be revisiting various points, as she did in the TV series. -- Zanimum 14:58, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Understood. However, a check of both Canadian & American spellings have revealed no such words as "froot", "komix", "bargoons" or "jakpot". Also in the summer camp storyline, it is misspelled as "Kamp Kawkaka". Lynn Johnston is a notoriously horrible speller in her strips. Somewhat ironic as in the strip Elly is quite pedantic with her family about grammar. USN1977 (talk) 03:12, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Additional Characters

I'm removing the section on Additional Characters, since it more properly belongs in the article "For Better or For Worse Characters" and doesn't seem to offer any new information from what is already in that article.Vgranucci 03:45, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Error on May 27, 2007

The last frame of the indicated date's comic has an error - although Elly boarded a bus that drives on the right hand side of the road, as in Canada/US/Europe, the bus is then seen driving on the left side of the road, as in Britain/Japan/Hong Kong. GBC 18:50, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

And your point is? Vgranucci 19:25, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
My point is... Oops! Nothing terribly wrong, just a visual goof that's kinda like when you see a blooper on a TV show but life goes on. GBC 16:34, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
All the cars are going in the same direction. It's a one-way road. http://www.fborfw.com/strip_fix/archives/2007_05.php. --Westendgirl (talk) 07:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Sole Author?

In the Wikipedia article on comic strips its says Johnson, like Jim Davis (Garfield) are not the sole writers of their respecitve strips. If this is so is should be noted in the article? 4.142.126.94 06:13, 12 August 2007 (UTC)eric

The quote from the comic strip article is as follows: "Also, many strips, some of which are still in affiliation with the original creator, are drawn or written by multiple people or entire companies, such as Jim Davis' Garfield and Lynn Johnston's For Better or for Worse." Based on the FBoFW website, Johnston apparently still writes the strip, and does much of the drawing. An assistant does lettering and background art. I suppose that's what the comic strip article is referring to. Vgranucci 06:51, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
News articles have stated that Johnston has had to cut back on drawing due to dystonia, hence assistants do lettering and background art. JenKilmer 06:29, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Lynn is the author of FBorFWAccuracyAdvocate79 (talk) 04:06, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Fair use images - Bibliography

The use of images not in compliance with our fair-use criteria or our policy on nonfree content is not appropriate, and the images have been removed. Please do not restore them. Durin's essay on this is an excellent reference, but I'm happy to discuss the issue with anyone who needs clarification on the policy. -- Merope 19:12, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Why is this part of the Indigenous WikiProject?

I don't understand the connection between FBoFW and the WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America/Anishinaabe. Can anybody explain why FBoFW would be of interest to that particular project? PKT 12:15, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

It probably was added during one character's (Elizabeth) time teaching in a First Nations community. You're right though, it probably doesn't have enough connection to the project to be included. I'll remove it. If anyone has any objections to that it can be reverted. Vgranucci 15:29, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Vgranucci!.........PKT 12:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Lawrence's "Coming Out"

"So long as there was no offensive material, and Johnston was fully aware of what she was doing, Universal Press would support the action. Johnston's personal reflections on Lawrence, an excerpt from the comic collection "It's the Thought That Counts...", are included on the strip's official webpage."

Of course, "no offensive material" in this context means nothing that is offensive to the gay-rights activists. Johnston and her editors completely disregarded, and doubtless have no concern for, the many hundreds of thousands of persons who have deeply felt religious and moral objections to the type of behavior that she was depicting, both in the "coming out" series and in later having Lawrence appear with his boyfriend. It was only 25 years ago that most persons would recoiled in horror and disgust at the idea of social acceptance of homosexual relationships, and that societal view was reflected in duly enacted laws of the national and provincial governments in Canada. Those laws were overturned not by the popular will, but by unelected judges placing their own interpretation on provisions in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Johnston's portrayal is completely one-sided, and she provided no opportunity for the presentation of any opposing view.

John Paul Parks (talk) 03:54, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

"No offensive material" would be, for example, Lawrence's mother finding out because he told her (not offensive) instead of finding out because she walks in on a massive explicit homo-orgy in his bedroom (offensive). There is nothing that is inoffensive to everyone - including this post, no doubt. Fitfatfighter (talk) 04:58, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
While I understand your pov, your argument is horrible. The original claim was "despite claiming to not be offensive, this offends me and many others." Your argument was essentially "too bad." People against homosexuality may be a minority now, but it's more of a 60-40 minority rather than a 90-10. It's still offensive to a lot of people, and claiming that John Paul Parks' viewpoint is merely his "prurient obsession" and his alone is just completely absurd. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PsychoPop (talk • contribs) 22:24, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Lynn Johnston is obviously staking out a position on the issue of homosexuality. She is entitled to do that, I suppose, but she should not pretend that she is doing so in a neutral manner. John Paul Parks (talk) 05:29, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I uploaded an scan of the "offending" coming out panel for another article. I added it here, as it is clearly useful to show the strip that actually caused the controversy (especially with "offensive" being subjective - now readers can decide for themselves what is offensive".)
I'm pretty sure the fair use of the 2 panels is watertight, given the discusion here. Was the previously deleted image more infringing? or just had no rationale?YobMod 12:38, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Original Characters - Elizabeth

Why is Elizabeth missing from the Original Characters section...? Upon skimming the history, I notice that the revision on Jan 2nd removed part of the Original Characters section, but Elizabeth's info was short. I was just cruising through and noticed, thought I would point it out. Shuckiduck (talk) 13:45, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Good eye! I've returned Elizabeth to the Original Characters section.Vgranucci (talk) 06:35, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Original Characters - Elly

I've twice reverted edits changing Elly's description to "mother of three". At the time the strip started, Elly was a mother of two. Vgranucci (talk) 17:03, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

More recent reference for Criticism section

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/26/AR2008082603480.html A Washington Post article, dated 27 August 2008, about readers who follow the strip and criticise it. -- Logotu (talk) 15:36, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Name

Clear standards I moved this page (again) based on WP:CAPS and WP:TRADEMARK. The latter reads in part: "Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules even if the trademark owner considers nonstandard formatting 'official.'" It seems obvious to me that this is the proper name for this article considering the standards in the Manual of Style. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:14, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Reverted, as per previous move. "For Better or For Worse" is the proper title of the work, not just a trade name. As such, we use the capitalization as it appears in the books and the strip. (This differs from corporate names and branding such as NIKE and TELUS, which Wikipedia formats as Nike and Telus respectively.) --Ckatzchatspy 08:57, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Really? Where does the Manual of Style allow for that? E.g. Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(books)#Capitalization says nothing about this. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:36, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Furthermore These are common moves at WP:RM, e.g. moving Love, Pain & the whole crazy thing → Love, Pain & the Whole Crazy Thing per WP:CAPS. If books and albums are not exempt from proper English, why are comic strips? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:38, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
I can't speak to those moves, other than to note that it is somewhat hard to track down a precise guide. However, the guideline you highlighted, Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(books)#Capitalization, states:

"Book titles, like names of other works, are exempt from "lowercase second and subsequent words"."

Hope this helps. --Ckatzchatspy 23:16, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Comparing reruns to first runs

Is there a site or other source somewhere that shows the original ("first-run") strip side-by-side with its retouched, reworked version? Is there a way to determine on what date the strip that ran, say, November 19, 2008, ran the first time? --DAW0001 (talk) 13:41, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

You could probably buy the older strip collections for comparision. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 11:49, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. That's usually the best way to do a side-by-side comparison. As an example, I'm looking at the re-run strip published today: Sunday, September 19, 2010 (http://fborfw.com/strip_fix/sunday_september_19_2010/). The original strip can be found in the '10th Anniversary Collection' book, on page 72, which I just happen to have and flipped through. By doing a keyword search on the official website (e.g. "cement mixer"), I was able to pinpoint it originally published: Sunday, September, 6, 1981.
It's interesting doing a quick comparison using that 1981 strip, now re-run in 2010. The actual drawings and dialog bubbles are completely untouched; what HAS changed is a complete re-colorization of all the panels. I can see gradient color shading on the bricks, cement mixer, background/sky (the original used one solid color). Micheal and his friend's shirts changed from blue and red, to purple and orange, etc. The most radical change (and I've seen it in a lot of her re-run strips) is changing the ethnicity of characters, in some attempt to appear more culturally diverse or politically correct. In this particular strip Micheal's friend is now mulatto, and the construction worker is now black. Personally I prefer the original versions, the new colorization looks too computerized and gaudy, and the political correctness seems a bit forced. Oh well, maybe I'm just a purist, I dislike anytime something old is modified, updated or re-envisioned, like movies or TV shows. :) --Apple2gs (talk) 09:06, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

New-runs set in present day?

In the article, I wrote that the post-August 2008 strips appear to be set 26 years before the present day. The vast majority of the new strips look as if they could be set in 1983, but a few hints of a present-day setting appeared in the 6 March 2008 strip (http://www.fborfw.com/strip_fix/archives/003637.php). Notice the shape of the car headlights. And there was a time when I could see the dental hygienist's whole face while she was cleaning. Tony (talk) 08:47, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Spelling

As a Canadian-written comic, set in Canada, I find it only proper that the information presented in this article should represent that by using Canadian spelling (colour, neighbour, cancelled). Also, Canadian terminology (First Nations instead of Native Americans) should be implemented. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blakebennett (talk • contribs) 19:57, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Removed "first person" template

I didn't see any first- or second-person in the article except in quotes. Even when that template was added, I could only find one first-person pronoun ("Over time we see him develop..."). Please point out or fix any other specific first-person problems I might have missed. —Mu Mind (talk) 00:37, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on For Better or For Worse. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:10, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on For Better or For Worse. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:37, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on For Better or For Worse. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:26, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:For_Better_or_For_Worse/Archive_1&oldid=1220090859"